Scientists have long thought that omega-3

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: “vegetarians”1% picked this

   The test subjects in the recent study who did not eat fish

   If we negate this, and we say the no-fish group were vegetarians, does that explain why they have a higher rate of heart disease than the fish group? Not unless we think vegetarianism increases your risk of heart disease, which is not a common sense idea.

   1%
2. B

   Opposite29% picked this

   The test subjects in the recent study who ate fish twice a week did not have a diet that was otherwise conducive

   If we negate this, it would strengthen somewhat. If the fish-eating group has a diet that, besides the fish, would incline them toward heart disease, yet they’re 30% less likely to get heart disease than non-fish-eaters, then that makes it seem like eating the fish is having a huge effect on lowering their heart disease risk, which strengthens the author’s conclusion that eating fish has health benefits.

   29%
3. C

   Unclear Impact2% picked this

   The test subjects in the recent study who did not eat fish were significantly more likely to eat red meat several times per week

   This is tempting, but ultimately D has stronger impact. Eating red meat has a fairly common sense association with increased risk of heart disease, so we might be thinking an alternate explanation for why the non-fish-eaters had a higher risk of heart disease is not their lack of fish but their abundance of red meat. When we compare C and D and ask ourselves, “Which one is a more compelling reason for why one group had lower risk of heart disease: because they ate significantly less red meat, or because they were significantly more engaged in activities known to augment cardiorespiratory health?”, the latter has to win because it’s known to augment heart health.

   2%
4. D

   Correct66% picked this

   The test subjects in the recent study who ate fish twice a week were not significantly more likely than those who did not to

   Why this is right

   If we negate this, it offers a compelling alternate explanation for why the fish-eaters had lower risk of heart disease: way more of them were regularly engaged in activities that are known to help your heart and lung health. When Necessary Assumption intersects with Causal arguments, anticipate Defender answers that rule out an alternate explanation.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   66%
5. E

   Opposite2% picked this

   The test subjects in the recent study who ate fish twice a week were no more likely than those who did

   If we negate this, then the fish-eating group was more likely to be sedentary. There’s a bit of a common sense link between sedentary lifestyles and higher risks of heart disease. Thus, this answer would be like B, in that negating the answer means that the fish-eating group starts off at a comparative disadvantage to the non-fish-eating group in terms of heart health. We want an alternate explanation that explains why the fish-eating group starts off at a comparative (30%) advantage to the non-fish-eating group, so that we don’t have to credit eating fish with providing that advantage.

   2%